mezzanineview (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mezzanineview) wrote2008-12-19 06:25 pm
mezzanineview) wrote2008-12-19 06:25 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I feel strangely vindicated by this whole Rick Warren situation. Don't get me wrong, I hate the guy's homophobic, anti-choice guts (and my views on Obama & Warren & The Situation are fantastically expressed by the great writer and satirist John Hodgman, which I will post under the cut).
What I'm referring to is the minor, but shameful revolt against one Miss Rachel Maddow, post Mike Huckabee interview, by a surprisingly considerable portion of the LGBT community.
Pam's House Blend, I'm looking at you.
My perverse sense of satisfaction sprouts from Rachel's sad, utterly disappointed segment on the selection of Warren yesterday (sidenote: MASSIVE love for teh Gavin, hope he wins his supposed gubernatorial campaign) and her coverage of some of the awful things Warren has said on today's show--comparing homosexuality to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, banning unrepentant homosexuals from joining his church--and thinking one thing.
I hope you're happy, gays who threw Rachel under the bus after she chose not to take on Huckabee for his homophobic views.
While I'm not thrilled with Obama's choice on this, I obviously still support him, but
EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT RICK WARREN
AS I WROTE on the Twitter feed, I have spent many mournful hours turning over the Rick Warren conundrum in my brain, and it all adds up to this: what makes Rick Warren a “moderate?”
HIS “FRIENDS” goatee?
HIS HAWAIIAN shirt?
THE FACT that he spoke at TED?
SOME have argued that it is his commitment to good works: his anti-hunger and anti-poverty initiatives. His work with AIDS and HIV patients. (Though some may call this the basic requirement of being a “Christian” in the first place).
SOME have argued as well that it is his willingness to reach out to those who do not agree with him. (Also known as “conversion”)
THAT IS ALL FINE. I do not wish to silence Warren. I am glad of his good works, and I respect the inspiration and comfort his congregants take from his example.
I ALSO SUSPECT he is a very nice person to spend time with. While there’s clearly some politicking going on, my instinct is that Obama invited Warren because he likes him… because he appreciated Warren for inviting him to Saddleback, and wants to return the favor.
EVEN IF YOU ARE GAY, or had had an abortion, or believed in evolution, I bet Rick Warren would be nice to you. He probably wouldn’t call you a sinner to your face, or suggest that your loving relationship is at best immature, at worst akin to pedophilia.
(OR YOU KNOW WHAT? Maybe he would say it to your face. Maybe his convictions are that strong. And while I think those convictions are demonstrably wrong and logically absurd–and not particularly “moderate”–I recognize his right to them.)
WHICH IS TO SAY: I would shake his hand. If I met him, I’d try to find some common ground, or at least keep the dinner party civil until dessert. I think there are lots of ways for Obama to do the same in his presidency.
BUT AS SOMEONE CLEVER on Twitter pointed out, I still wouldn’t invite him to sing at my wedding.
WHAT’S MORE: this not solely a question of being inclusive of different viewpoints. If Warren were merely a pro-life creationist, I would not be so bothered. It’s the question that Obama and Warren agree on that really troubles me.
BOTH WARREN AND OBAMA believe in a fallacy: that one can support equal rights for “everybody” (Warren) and for gay folks specifically (Obama), and yet not support a gay person having the same access as a straight person to the governmental special status known as “marriage.”
I KNOW HOW TEMPTING this fallacy can be: I am ashamed to admit that I half-fell for it myself until Massachusetts proved that the world would not end, and the semantic difference between “domestic partnerships” and “marriage” was so meaningless as to be offensive. I was wrong, I am sorry.
I HAVE CONFIDENCE that, in no short order, Prop 8 will be repealed, and the gay marriage debate will look as absurd at the miscegenation debates of the 20th century do now. I have confidence this will happen not because it is merely right, or because the electorate will suddenly love gayness, but because opposition to gay marriage has no logical foundation in a civil society that is premised on equality.
(CHURCHES can go ahead and ban it all they like. They have their own charters, and no obligation to logic.)
THOSE OF US, however, who foolishly refused to take Obama at his word when he told us he didn’t support gay marriage OVER AND OVER AGAIN must now take him at his deed. He really, really doesn’t want gays to get married. SRSLY.
LOOK: my gut tells me that Obama likes and respects gay people and wants them to thrive in this country. I think he is tolerant by nature, as his patience with Wright and his embrace of Warren shows.
BUT AFTER MCCLURKIN and now Warren, it is hard not to conclude that Barack Obama is somewhat tone deaf when it comes to gay issues. And at this point, if he is interested in convincing us otherwise (and I’m not presuming he is), it will take more than a few words or a second pastor or some other symbolic gesture. It will take deeds.*
That is all.
~John Hodgman
What I'm referring to is the minor, but shameful revolt against one Miss Rachel Maddow, post Mike Huckabee interview, by a surprisingly considerable portion of the LGBT community.
Pam's House Blend, I'm looking at you.
My perverse sense of satisfaction sprouts from Rachel's sad, utterly disappointed segment on the selection of Warren yesterday (sidenote: MASSIVE love for teh Gavin, hope he wins his supposed gubernatorial campaign) and her coverage of some of the awful things Warren has said on today's show--comparing homosexuality to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, banning unrepentant homosexuals from joining his church--and thinking one thing.
I hope you're happy, gays who threw Rachel under the bus after she chose not to take on Huckabee for his homophobic views.
While I'm not thrilled with Obama's choice on this, I obviously still support him, but
EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT RICK WARREN
AS I WROTE on the Twitter feed, I have spent many mournful hours turning over the Rick Warren conundrum in my brain, and it all adds up to this: what makes Rick Warren a “moderate?”
HIS “FRIENDS” goatee?
HIS HAWAIIAN shirt?
THE FACT that he spoke at TED?
SOME have argued that it is his commitment to good works: his anti-hunger and anti-poverty initiatives. His work with AIDS and HIV patients. (Though some may call this the basic requirement of being a “Christian” in the first place).
SOME have argued as well that it is his willingness to reach out to those who do not agree with him. (Also known as “conversion”)
THAT IS ALL FINE. I do not wish to silence Warren. I am glad of his good works, and I respect the inspiration and comfort his congregants take from his example.
I ALSO SUSPECT he is a very nice person to spend time with. While there’s clearly some politicking going on, my instinct is that Obama invited Warren because he likes him… because he appreciated Warren for inviting him to Saddleback, and wants to return the favor.
EVEN IF YOU ARE GAY, or had had an abortion, or believed in evolution, I bet Rick Warren would be nice to you. He probably wouldn’t call you a sinner to your face, or suggest that your loving relationship is at best immature, at worst akin to pedophilia.
(OR YOU KNOW WHAT? Maybe he would say it to your face. Maybe his convictions are that strong. And while I think those convictions are demonstrably wrong and logically absurd–and not particularly “moderate”–I recognize his right to them.)
WHICH IS TO SAY: I would shake his hand. If I met him, I’d try to find some common ground, or at least keep the dinner party civil until dessert. I think there are lots of ways for Obama to do the same in his presidency.
BUT AS SOMEONE CLEVER on Twitter pointed out, I still wouldn’t invite him to sing at my wedding.
WHAT’S MORE: this not solely a question of being inclusive of different viewpoints. If Warren were merely a pro-life creationist, I would not be so bothered. It’s the question that Obama and Warren agree on that really troubles me.
BOTH WARREN AND OBAMA believe in a fallacy: that one can support equal rights for “everybody” (Warren) and for gay folks specifically (Obama), and yet not support a gay person having the same access as a straight person to the governmental special status known as “marriage.”
I KNOW HOW TEMPTING this fallacy can be: I am ashamed to admit that I half-fell for it myself until Massachusetts proved that the world would not end, and the semantic difference between “domestic partnerships” and “marriage” was so meaningless as to be offensive. I was wrong, I am sorry.
I HAVE CONFIDENCE that, in no short order, Prop 8 will be repealed, and the gay marriage debate will look as absurd at the miscegenation debates of the 20th century do now. I have confidence this will happen not because it is merely right, or because the electorate will suddenly love gayness, but because opposition to gay marriage has no logical foundation in a civil society that is premised on equality.
(CHURCHES can go ahead and ban it all they like. They have their own charters, and no obligation to logic.)
THOSE OF US, however, who foolishly refused to take Obama at his word when he told us he didn’t support gay marriage OVER AND OVER AGAIN must now take him at his deed. He really, really doesn’t want gays to get married. SRSLY.
LOOK: my gut tells me that Obama likes and respects gay people and wants them to thrive in this country. I think he is tolerant by nature, as his patience with Wright and his embrace of Warren shows.
BUT AFTER MCCLURKIN and now Warren, it is hard not to conclude that Barack Obama is somewhat tone deaf when it comes to gay issues. And at this point, if he is interested in convincing us otherwise (and I’m not presuming he is), it will take more than a few words or a second pastor or some other symbolic gesture. It will take deeds.*
That is all.
~John Hodgman
no subject
no subject
I could very well be wrong on this, as it's just my impression, but the initial idea that Obama was "pro-gay" seemed to come more from the fact that he was not actively "anti-gay." In other words, he said that he would not make a federal ban against gay marriage; that was taken then out of context, despite the fact that he has said over and over that he does not support gay marriage. He never lied; quite honestly? I disagree with him on that (and I do on other things) but I'm not surprised. I never expected nor received any surprises and therefore, while I don't like the Warren situation, I'm also not disappointed in it merely because I had no false expectations. In this respect, Obama has always been the lesser of two evils. This was never going to be one of his "change[s] that we can believe in."
The fact is that, while we may have come some way in getting gay rights recognized, we have a very long way to go-- in much the same way that despite the end of slavery in the 1860s and civil rights in the 1950s and so forth, we've only now elected an African American president--and we still have a way to go before there can be true equality.
And that holds true across the board--there is still a long way to go before people of all ethnicities and races are equal to each other, there is still a long way to go before gender is not an issue, and there is a long way to go before sexuality (which, I could make an argument that is really about gender) is not an issue.
Obama is, in actuality, only a first step, and an imperfect one. He's still the best hope this country has right now, and while he won't be a champion of the cause, he's also not going to get in the way (and like I said, while I disagree about Warren, having Warren do the invocation does not qualify as actively supporting what Warren stands for).
no subject
Oh John Hodgman. I &hearts you. It was a treat to read all that.
Also, this aggression towards Doctor Maddow bothered me as well. I know we all WANT some sort of fighter for gay rights in the mainstream media, but that doesn't mean Rachel has to be it. She just HAPPENS to be gay. It isn't her JOB. While I think she could've added more substance to the book plug that was her interview with Fuckabee, she has no obligation to parade about being the token gay, nor should we expect it of her. I really did appreciate her covering Warren so thoroughly, though. She did so like a true progressive, not just a lesbian.